RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AO3

• Supporting evidence for the efficacy of RJ is provided by Sherman and Strang (2007) who looked at the perspective and judgment of the offenders. They found that offenders said they had found it beneficial and there was a decrease in reoffending rates following the use of restorative justice. This supports the use of RJ as it demonstrates that it can reduce re-offending rates. The offender is able to see the impact their actions have had, and this humanises the victim and makes offenders feel accountable for their actions.
• However, an opposing view was presented in 2016, by Restorative Solutions who reported that ‘the reality is that there are currently large areas of England and Wales where a Restorative Justice service is not available to victims. This is implying that RJ is not commonly used, and this could be due to a lack of priority from public policies to ensure that this is widely accessible for offenders and victims. However, this does not mean that RJ is not effective when implemented, but rather that we should invest more time and resources into it so it can be effective on a larger scale.
• One methodological issue with RJ, is that there is potentially a problem with the satisfaction levels expressed by the victims and the offenders. There is a self-selection bias in that both parties need to be willing to enter the programme. It may be that the restorative justice programme works well for certain individuals but cannot be used for everyone and this limits the application of this type of punishment.
• This is a weakness of RJ as the offender and victim must be willing to participate and they are likely to be biased on satisfaction scores. Therefore, we must be cautious when drawing conclusions from self-rated scores, as they may not be able to be generalised to a wider setting. It may be that RJ is only effective for some individuals, meaning it cannot be the only solution of criminal behaviour.
• Furthermore, there are high levels of sample attrition (drop out) in the programme. This may be because both the victim and the offender find it harder to complete than they originally thought. It may also be, in the case of the victim at least, that it is not fulfilling what they wanted to achieve. This again means that RJ isn’t an effective intervention for all offenders or victims and in some cases, this could have the reverse effect and make the offender and victim more defensive which would be counterproductive.
• Ethical issues to consider

  • From the victim's perspective:
  • Psychological harm is a key ethical issue
  • Victim may feel the criminal showed no empathy
  • Victim may feel 'injured' for a second time, leading to a loss of self-esteem
  • Victim may feel taken advantage of if the criminal was offered restorative justice as opposed to a custodial sentence, especially if the criminal doesn't appear to be taking the procedure seriously
• Restorative justice process


  • May cause psychological harm to victims
  • Victims may feel embarrassed by the process
  • Offender may take advantage of the process to avoid/reduce custodial sentence
• Ethical issues from the offender's perspective

  • Making people face up to their wrongdoing can lead to abuse of power
  • Victims can gang up on an offender especially where the offender is a child
  • Victims may try to shame the offender which is not the intention of the process
  • It is important that an offender also feels 'understood'
• Restorative justice programmes need to be carefully balanced and ensure benefit to both victim and offender and avoidance of harm
• The victim and/or their family may take advantage of the RJ process and gang up on offender, this is not the aim of RJ
• RJ is meant to be mutually beneficial for both offender and victim - both need to feel understood
• It is vital that the facilitator ensures that there is a balance and that the process is beneficial for both victim and offender and that the process avoids harm at all costs
• The cost to the economy of reoffending (recidivism) is at least £9.5 billion per year
• Any method that may reduce even a small amount of offending or reoffending must offer benefits to society
• The UK Restorative Justice Council claims that reduced reoffending means that £8 is saved for every £1 spent on the restorative process (e.g., reduced custodial costs, court costs, police time etc.)
• Reduced reoffending


  Economically beneficial to society
• The cost of RJ is significantly lower than the cost of re-offending, so it would make economic sense to continue to use RJ programmes